Secretary of State Kerry has declared the use of chemical
weapons in Syria a “moral obscenity”.
Far be it from us, to question that, or to ask whether the
conventional weapons that the Syrian regime used to kill over ten thousand in Hama
in 1981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre),
with nary a peep from the international community, were equally obscene, or
perfectly salonfähig. For the sake of argument, we fully
grant Mr. Kerry his premise. But
then -- What are we to make of this?
"the use of gas on the
battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to
Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq
did not lose." Lang disclosed that more than 60 officers of the
Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on
Iranian deployments. He cautioned that the DIA "would have never accepted
the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military
objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival."
Despite this claim, the Reagan
administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming
the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
Speaking purely as a logician, and by no means a moralist, it
behoves me to observe that (asperity begins at home), before we speak of
bombing Syria, we should speak of bombing the Reagan Administration.
Also, a historico-rhetorical note: It is an underhanded tug at the heartstrings, to speak of (cue violins) "the Iraqi struggle for survival", when it was after all Iraq that launched that war.
Also, a historico-rhetorical note: It is an underhanded tug at the heartstrings, to speak of (cue violins) "the Iraqi struggle for survival", when it was after all Iraq that launched that war.
No comments:
Post a Comment